Case 2200612/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Cristina Raez-Ruiz v MLC Partners Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200612/2021
- Decision date
- 24 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Cristina Raez-Ruiz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 2 June 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal noted that she appeared to have less than two years' continuous service with the respondent and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally prevents an unfair dismissal claim from being brought unless the qualifying period is met or a specific exception applies, which did not seem to apply on the material before it.
The claimant did not make written representations, and the tribunal recorded that she failed to make representations at the preliminary hearing on 4 November 2021, or failed to make any sufficient representations, against strike out. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment also states that the claimant's remaining claims were still listed for hearing on 24 January 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and did not make written or oral representations sufficient to show the claim should proceed under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.